I was taught that line by line edits apply to technical errors such as typos, grammatical errors and layout issues. When doing these it is best to list them and often they need no explanation. This way, an author can scan down the list and correct. If not a list, these are made inside the actual document such as 'trackchanges' in word.
Explanation is needed if an author makes the same basic error over and over.
A lot in your line by line edit can be reduced to general comments with a few examples. If an author wishes for a detailed breakdown, they will usually ask for it.
In general though, the format for a critique goes like so:
Overview with something positive. -examples of what worked. Comment on the pacing, word choice, characters, style, setting etc.(relevant options)
Overview with something potentially negative. -same kinds of examples.
Grammatical overview with nitpicks. -explanation if needed.
Suggestions of improvement. -this can refer to anything. -style issues usually go here because they are optional.
Conclusive summary that is both positive and negative.
This is the standard critique format as determined by most professional writing communities. The idea behind it is to increase understanding between authors and critiquers. Now i know you are probably a thick skinned author (as am I) and can handle upfront critiques, but many authors are not, and shy away or simply ignore harsh critiques.
I admire you for your line by line editing though - it is very well done. I used to do something similar myself until professional writing communities frowned on it. I did not realise that there was a set method of critiquing and since following it, I have found that my critiques have improved greatly.
I also hope I didn't come off as harsh lol. Re-reading my first one it sounds a bit too much like, 'jumping on the newbie'. I really am nice :D and i'm probably going to vote yes. :D
Ah! See..I can do that, probably. It will take some getting used to, I imagine.
I think I tend to start with the worst and build positively throughout, when doing things that way. It's kind of a psychological thing: Q: "What is someone most likely to remember?" A: "Last thing they are told."
Yes I am thick-skinned these days. It took awhile for me to become that way as I started rather sensitive. I think it is good this way because I can take a critique and look at it objectively next to my writing. The most important part, for me, is being able to objectively look at my writing. :D I know some people aren't like that and I should lighten up, some.
I think one of the things I see in critiques that really make me want to ignore it is: "What I liked most..." and "What I liked least..." comments. I know they are meant to be helpful but reading the standardized critiques sometimes grate on me. Again, that's probably because they give something very general most of the time (with a few specifics) and I'm usually a specific person.
No I did not feel you came off as harsh at all. I felt your original comment was informative and probably something I should consider for future critiquing in communities and the like. :)
Would you mind if I added you to my friends list? As a writer, it is always great to find other writers, especially those willing to argue their points :D
I was taught that line by line edits apply to technical errors such as typos, grammatical errors and layout issues. When doing these it is best to list them and often they need no explanation. This way, an author can scan down the list and correct. If not a list, these are made inside the actual document such as 'trackchanges' in word.
Explanation is needed if an author makes the same basic error over and over.
A lot in your line by line edit can be reduced to general comments with a few examples. If an author wishes for a detailed breakdown, they will usually ask for it.
In general though, the format for a critique goes like so:
Overview with something positive.
-examples of what worked. Comment on the pacing, word choice, characters, style, setting etc.(relevant options)
Overview with something potentially negative.
-same kinds of examples.
Grammatical overview with nitpicks.
-explanation if needed.
Suggestions of improvement.
-this can refer to anything.
-style issues usually go here because they are optional.
Conclusive summary that is both positive and negative.
This is the standard critique format as determined by most professional writing communities. The idea behind it is to increase understanding between authors and critiquers. Now i know you are probably a thick skinned author (as am I) and can handle upfront critiques, but many authors are not, and shy away or simply ignore harsh critiques.
I admire you for your line by line editing though - it is very well done. I used to do something similar myself until professional writing communities frowned on it. I did not realise that there was a set method of critiquing and since following it, I have found that my critiques have improved greatly.
I also hope I didn't come off as harsh lol. Re-reading my first one it sounds a bit too much like, 'jumping on the newbie'. I really am nice :D and i'm probably going to vote yes. :D
Reply
I think I tend to start with the worst and build positively throughout, when doing things that way. It's kind of a psychological thing: Q: "What is someone most likely to remember?" A: "Last thing they are told."
Yes I am thick-skinned these days. It took awhile for me to become that way as I started rather sensitive. I think it is good this way because I can take a critique and look at it objectively next to my writing. The most important part, for me, is being able to objectively look at my writing. :D I know some people aren't like that and I should lighten up, some.
I think one of the things I see in critiques that really make me want to ignore it is: "What I liked most..." and "What I liked least..." comments. I know they are meant to be helpful but reading the standardized critiques sometimes grate on me. Again, that's probably because they give something very general most of the time (with a few specifics) and I'm usually a specific person.
No I did not feel you came off as harsh at all. I felt your original comment was informative and probably something I should consider for future critiquing in communities and the like. :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment